Status

Summary

This enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to prohibit the production, possession and sale of any substance or any equipment or other material that is intended for use in production of or trafficking in methamphetamine.

Madam Speaker, currently, under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the CDSA, it is illegal to produce, traffic or import methamphetamines and ecstasy, as it is for all illegal drugs. Bill C-475 would extend to the ingredients of methamphetamines and ecstasy and changes the act to make it illegal to produce, sell or import anything that would be used to produce the final product.

It is really a reincarnation of Bill C-428 from the 39th Parliament, only this version was changed to include ecstasy and a few other very minor wording changes. It is important to let people know that this bill does not include mandatory minimums, which is not like other crime bills that we have seen introduced by government members.

The main point about the bill is that it would not do very much to enable the justice system to deal more effectively or efficiently with methamphetamines or ecstasy. It may seem like it would because it talks about the ingredients of meth and ecstasy, but it would appear that the justice system already has an adequate way of dealing with this through its organized crime provisions in the Criminal Code.

At committee I was able to ask legislative counsel from the Department of Justice about the bill. I will like read from the transcript. The member from Halifax said:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have one question for you. Hopefully you can answer it. Do you see this amendment capturing any situation that isn't already covered by the organized crime provisions, or is it just the provision in and of itself that it's illegal to produce? Do you see this as actually having an impact?

The lawyer answered:

In terms of the production, I don't think so; nothing comes to mind. In terms of the impact on organized crime, I don't think it has an impact either.

The member from Halifax said:

Do you mean no impact positive or negative?

The Justice lawyer answered:

Hopefully it will have a positive effect in the sense that it will act as a deterrent, but in terms of the relationship between this offence and other offences, I don't think there is any.

The member from Halifax said:

Those are all my questions. Thanks.

Ultimately, it seems like it would not have very much of an effect. The lawyer did mention deterrence, however, the House has heard reams of evidence showing that deterrence is not really an effective strategy when it comes to drug crimes.

Should we support a bill that does not seem to have very much effect? Is this an example of the maxim, no harm, no foul? It is a private member's bill, so I submit that there are two considerations. First, I do respect any member's attempt to respond to the needs of his or her constituents by bringing forward a private member's bill. Our ability to bring forward legislation is a special privilege and it is a very challenging thing to see realized as there are so many steps to getting a piece of legislation through the House. Private member's bills are usually a direct response to the needs or the demands of constituents in a riding, so I tend to give a lot of weight to private member's bills, provided they are not harmful.

The second thing to consider when deciding how to vote on a private member's bill is the fact that it is a free vote and all members get to make up their mind on whether they will support it. If other members of the House were to ask me for my advice on whether they should support it, I would say that it was their choice. It does not seem to have much of an impact but it does not seem to have a negative impact either.

I would like to use the rest of my time to talk about what good drug policy would look like. Would it not be exciting to debate intelligent drug policy for Canada? First, with regard to drug labs, we have seen some really interesting non-criminal ways of dealing with labs in the U.S. The U.S. has seen more successes with commercial and consumer regulation which limits the quantity of over-the-counter medication that a person can purchase and it questions the reason for the purchase. This kind of regulation can serve to limit the production of drugs like methamphetamine and ecstasy and it can act like a preventive measure, unlike this bill.

The existing legislation that we have in the Criminal Code or in the CDSA, the CDSA serves more as an after the fact punishment if a person is caught rather than effectively trying to reduce the ability to produce.

Regulations like the U.S. legislation requiring photo ID and a signature also provide ways to track, identify and police offenders who purchase over-the-counter drugs for meth and ecstasy production. Therefore, why are we not looking at U.S. solutions that have worked like consumer and commercial regulations, instead of adopting solutions that have failed, like a bloated prison system?

Why are we not looking at harm reduction? We have Mainline Needle Exchange back home in Halifax and Vancouver has Insite, a safe injection site. Despite the life-saving successes of harm reduction measures, such as needle exchanges, successes in reducing the spread of HIV and hepatitis C among drug users and successes in increasing access to treatment, in 2007, the Conservatives introduced a new anti-drug strategy for Canada that removed all references to harm reduction.

Instead, the government has put greater emphasis on law enforcement. What a big surprise. It moves Canada closer and closer to an expensive and failed U.S.-style drug system. Right now, Canada spends 73% of its drug policy budget on enforcement. Still, drug use continues to rise. If we look at the numbers, there is 73% to enforcement, 14% to treatment, 7% to research, 2.6% to prevention and 2.6% to harm reduction.

In 2008, the National Framework for Action to Reduce the Harms Associated with Alcohol and Other Drugs and Substances in Canada convened a working group. Members included federal agencies and provincial health agencies like Health Canada and the Nova Scotia Department of Health Promotion and Protection. It also included related agency representatives from the Correctional Service of Canada, the College of Family Physicians of Canada and the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. That is quite the team they put together.

The working groups points out:

Research findings suggest that providing appropriate services and supports across a range of systems not only reduces substance use problems but also improves a wide range of outcomes related to health, social functioning and criminal justice. Such a spectrum of services and supports is also a good investment for government, because it returns economic benefits that far outstrip its cost.

The group is calling for a national treatment strategy. This national treatment strategy would look at building capacity across a continuum of services and supports. It would look at supporting that continuum of services and supports. It would look at developing a research program and would also consider reducing stigma and discrimination. How we would do that and what that would look like?

That is intelligent drug policy and that is the kind of drug policy that we can get behind. The NDP is calling for better and more prevention programs directed at at-risk youth. We are calling for more resources for prosecution and the enforcement of existing laws. We are calling for more officers on the street, as promised by the Conservatives but not yet delivered. We are calling for an overall co-ordinated strategy focused on gangs and organized crime and also toughened proceeds of crime legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to private member's Bill C-475. This is a reincarnation, if I can use that term, of Bill C-428 that was presented to the House by the member for Peace River and passed by the House in the last Parliament. Like so many other bills, it died on the order paper when the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister decided to hold an election. So it is coming back and I want to acknowledge the work that has been done by the author of the bill, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. It is lovely countryside and I enjoy going out there whenever I get the chance.

The bill deals with what is, by any standard, a scourge, a really horrendous problem for our society, particularly for our young people. It attempts to further control access to methamphetamines and the drug ecstasy, to use its street name. It is a tragedy that we repeatedly run across. All members of the House at some point have had constituents come in to talk to them about this.

The drugs ecstasy and methamphetamines are both highly addictive. Not only are they highly addictive, but they are also addictive at a very rapid pace. Sometimes just an initial taking of it is enough to hook people on it and, certainly, if someone uses it three to five times there is a very high probability that he or she is going to be addicted. Also, if it is used repeatedly in any kind of high volume, strong medical evidence now shows that it causes brain damage.

The availability of this drug has an interesting history here in Canada, but what has been very clear is that it is particularly attractive to young people. As we heard from my colleague from the Bloc, even children in elementary schools get access to it. It is cheap. It is cheap to make and therefore is quite accessible on the street.

It has an interesting history here in Canada in that it started as an epidemic in the smaller communities in the mid-northern parts of the country, particularly in the western provinces. The explanation we have been given by the police authorities who have been dealing with it is that it was cheap to set up the labs and the labs were easily concealable in smaller communities. Fairly clearly, it was street gangs that were doing this as opposed to the larger organized crime syndicates that we have, although there is some indication that they are now involved in it quite substantially as well. But the initial phases were in small rural communities and it became an epidemic within a year.

Interestingly, what then happened, which I suppose is not that unusual, is that it expanded eastward and southward in this country and then southward into the United States. We have become, as we have heard from other speakers today, a major exporter of these particular drugs to the United States.

As a bit of an aside, I would like to relate some of the work we have done and information we have received both at the justice committee and public safety committee, where we heard from our police forces and communities. I want to praise these communities, particularly in the rural parts of the country. They moved as communities to effectively shut down the labs in a number of the communities and developed treatment for the youth who had been affected and addicted to these substances. It really is a good news story from that perspective. Community by community, they learned from each other and responded to this problem.

I am not going to suggest this was the be all and the end all to ending it. However, a number of the smaller communities, especially in the western provinces, were quite effective at responding to it once they had identified how bad it was.

I have to say it has been less successful in other parts of the country and is being worked on now, in co-operation with police forces and community groups. As well, there is more and more evidence that the addiction can be treated. Obviously, the person has to get off it completely. It is fairly clear that the work to rebuild a person's psychological strength can be done.

There is one other point I want to raise with regard to this phenomenon vis-à-vis Canada. The precursors, the chemical components to these drugs by and large come in from other countries. Some come from the United States to a significant degree. Some come from Asia, as well. There was a problem, for instance in the state of New York, and the stories we heard were well documented to be accurate and not just anecdotal, that people would clear the shelves of Sudafed. There are components in Sudafed that are used to make these drugs. People would go in to drug stores and literally take all of the Sudafed. The state of New York has moved to ban that. People are allowed to buy only enough Sudafed to deal with a cold, not enough to be used in the production of other drugs.

The state of New York and other states in the United States have moved to regulate those chemicals at source. If a person is manufacturing these precursors and then selling them, the person buying them has to show what they are going to be used for and why the volume being bought is needed. It has been quite effective in restricting the labs in the United States. What had been happening, and is still happening here, is the purchaser would conveniently sell it in smaller batches to any number of people. Clearly the person would have to know that some of it was getting into the hands of gangs to be used for the purposes of making illicit drugs.

Some states have shut that down by regulating it. They did not use criminal law, they used commercial and consumer regulation. What happens now is that a chain is created. The producer has to report to whom it was sold and in what volume. The person purchasing it has to do the same thing. If people then break it into sublots and sell it off, they have to show to whom they have sold it and they have to have an explanation as to what it is going to be used for. It has been quite effective in the United States to use the regulatory framework, not criminal law, to shut it down, to a great extent, leaving Canada, as I and other members have said, as an importer. The same process is going on in Canada, in terms of the sales, but the regulatory infrastructure is not in place in this country.

I do not want in any way to demean the effort of the member with respect to this legislation because we are supporting it; it is one step that is needed. However, in order to really get at this, we also need to regulate this from the producer right through the whole chain so that we are assured that it does not get into the hands of the gangs, or if it does, that we are able to trace it right to them and use this legislation to charge and convict them.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand in the House again this afternoon to speak. This time it is with regard to Bill S-201.

Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I want to commend you and the other chair officers who have been working late hours the last couple of nights and yet you are still here on Friday afternoon. I would like to commend you for your diligence in this respect.

I will begin by commending Senator Hugh Segal who brought this forward and has been working diligently with respect to the matters that are addressed in this bill and issues of accountability and transparency that the senators and I share.

I know this bill had a previous incarnation in the Senate before prorogation last fall but, unfortunately, it did not get out of committee before prorogation and therefore had to go through the whole process again.

I know that the careful consideration that was given by the hon. senators in the other place, especially within the national finance committee, is greatly appreciated by all members of the House. My private member's bill, Bill C-428, is in the other place and is going through the same consideration, the same thoughtful process that I know this private member's bill has gone through. I would like to commend the senators who worked diligently not only on this bill but also on my bill and many of my colleagues' bills as well.

The bill that we are here to discuss is Bill S-201, which seeks to amend the Financial Administration Act and the Bank of Canada Act. The requirements that would change are as follows. This would require that all departments, agencies and parent crown corporations would table financial statements on a quarterly basis. The bill would create a more transparent financial management system in government and would allow parliamentarians and all Canadians to see the way the government is spending money and ensuring that it is delivering programs effectively.

I wholeheartedly agree with the objectives of this bill. It would ensure greater accountability and transparency of government. The good, hard-working Canadians who pay their taxes on a regular basis and the people from my constituency really deserve no less.

The objectives are really in keeping with our government's commitment to Canadians to increase accountability of government. Accountability is the foundation of Canada's system of responsible government. It is key to assuring Canadians and Parliament that public resources are effectively and efficiently used.

I am especially proud of the Federal Accountability Act that this government brought forward as its first piece of legislation because it provides Canadians with the assurance that the powers entrusted to government are being exercised in the public interest.

However, accountability does not stop there. It has to be throughout government. An accountable government ensures that Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars are not wasted and ensures they are invested in responsible and effective programs that meet Canadians' needs. In fact, the sound stewardship of Canadian tax dollars ensures they receive value for money, and that is a top priority for myself and our government.

There have been some important improvements brought forward by our government in working to ensure that Parliament has the information it needs to hold any government of any day to account. For example, we have made several improvements to the estimates documents to provide more meaningful information to parliamentarians and make these documents more user friendly.

The Treasury Board Secretariat has worked with departments and agencies to improve the quality of information presented for their individual requirements. This has resulted in better information describing the nature of transactions, including the offset of new spending requirements through the use of existing spending authorities.

In the past year we have made other changes, including provisions of clearer summary tables, a presentation of gross financial requirements for each organization and an explanation of the funds available to offset new spending requirements. These improvements allow hon. members in the House to get a better understanding of the government's spending plans and to ensure that they can hold the government to account.

We are also strengthening the oversight role in the use of public funds. The creation of a parliamentary budget officer is a long realized dream of my predecessor, the member from Peace River, whom I replaced, Charlie Penson.

After a decade of advocating for this officer of Parliament who would provide objective analysis to the nation's finances, Mr. Kevin Page was appointed by the Conservative government as our first Parliamentary Budget Officer, and that happened in March of this year. This is another move to realize a decade long dream of advancing transparency and accountability within government that my predecessor had and for which I know many members of the House have been advocating for nearly a decade.

This new officer of Parliament position was announced in the Federal Accountability Act and is now included within the Parliament of Canada Act. The person has three main responsibilities: first, to provide objective analysis to the House of Commons and to the Senate concerning the state of the nation's finances and trend within the general economy; second, he has the responsibility to undertake economic and fiscal research for House of Commons standing committees; and third, he estimates the financial cost of proposals currently or prospectively under consideration in either the House when requested to do so by a member or a committee of the Senate or the House of Commons, or a committee of both Houses.

In talking with the new Parliamentary Budget Officer, I had an opportunity to discuss the bill that is currently before us today, Bill S-201. I can say that our new officer of Parliament is very supportive of this new bill. It would actually improve his capability of helping out members of Parliament and senators.

In addition to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the government has recently implemented a new expenditure management system as well. This system will rigorously and systematically assess all direct program spending and operating costs of major programs. Further, all government organizations are required to conduct their program strategic reviews to assess how and whether they are first, efficient and effective; second, able to meet the priorities of Canadians; and third, are aligned with federal responsibilities.

The first round of strategic reviews was completed in the fiscal 2007-08 year with departments identifying expenditures totalling some $386 million a year of program that are low performing or programs that are no longer needed.

In the fiscal year 2008-09, 16 departments and agencies are reviewing their program spending. This covers a total spending of $20 billion. These reviews will help us reduce spending in inefficient or ineffective programs and stop those that just do not work. These will help to ensure that every tax dollar that we collect, as government, is spent to deliver the necessary programs to Canadians. They will help us to control the overall growth of government spending.

This is simply good management. It is the same thing Canadian families to ensure they are spending efficiently. When they shift their priorities, they need to ensure they are living within their means. Governments should act no differently. That is good management, good government and it is good leadership for Canadians.

The first fruits borne by this more disciplined approach were announced recently in the savings of $386 million, money that will be redirected to new initiatives within departments or within the government at large.

Taken together with the key elements of this new expenditure management system, it will ensure that taxpayer dollars are well managed, that they are spent in responsible ways and that the management of doing this will ensure that the business of government is responding to the needs of Canadians.

I will now turn directly to the bill we are talking about this afternoon. The bill also supports accountability and the sound stewardship of all tax dollars. I will explain how.

By increasing the quality and frequency of financial reporting to Parliament and Canadians, the bill will ensure that they are informed of recent developments in government operations. As such, it will facilitate oversight by parliamentarians of government spending on a timely basis.

It is imperative that we have the correct information in a timely manner in order to combat waste of money. Every dollar the taxpayers pay must be treated with respect and must be closely monitored.

Let me step back for a second and outline how the current reporting system works. The government prepares a federal budget and summary financial statements on an annual basis. The Department of Finance also publishes a monthly fiscal monitor that reports on the government's overall fiscal results. While this report does contain some departmental information, it does so in such an aggregated way that it really only reflects government's performance overall.

This bill will require that all federal departments, government agencies and crown corporations would have to, in addition, submit quarterly financial reports to Parliament. This would be a substantial increase in the timeliness and quality of information reported to Parliament.

It is important to note that the Senate has already made some important improvements to the bill. For example, it was amended to require that financial statements are made public 60 days after the quarter end. This will provide for a more regular reporting timetable while lessening the burden on organizations. It will also avoid the need to defer the release of quarterly financial statements during recess or prorogation.

These are amendments that I thank the hon. senators for making, because they provide additional transparency for parliamentarians and Canadians.

I would also like to take this opportunity to explain that the government has been working diligently to strengthen financial management across the federal government. A sound system of financial controls improves this organization's ability to manage risk.

In this area, we have taken a number of steps to strengthen both our policy and our practice. For example, by March 2009, we should have in place a renewed financial management framework and policies that clarify the responsibilities and accountabilities of deputy ministers and senior officials within government.

In addition, our audit policy is strengthening public sector accountability, risk management, resource stewardship and good governance by reorganizing and bolstering internal audit functions on a government-wide basis.

This involvement ensures the independence of internal audit from line management by introducing two points. The first is departmental audit committees, which will include a majority of competent and experienced members drawn from outside the federal public service. The second is the organizational independence of chief audit executives, who will lead audit functions and must now report directly to the deputy head.

In conclusion, I want to ensure that there will be no doubt that the government is committed to improving accountability and increasing transparency. We have proven that not only in word but also in action. I will stand with hard-working taxpaying Canadians and support legislation like this bill, which will ensure greater transparency for government expenditures.

We support quarterly financial reporting requirements by all federal departments, agencies and parent crown corporations. The measures that I have talked about today will provide Canadians with the open and honest government they deserve, one that acts transparently, ensures value for money and demonstrates accountability.

Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-26. From my constituency, I hear great concern with regard to the impact of the drug trade and the drug fueled crime that results from that trade.

With crystal meth, the date rape drug, the marijuana grow ops and clandestine labs proliferating in our communities from coast to coast, Canadians are demanding that the Government of Canada take some action.

In the last election we promised to crack down on drug crime. We promised that we would “introduce mandatory minimum sentences for designated drug trafficking offences to ensure that serious crime results in serious punishment”, and that we would, “end conditional sentences or house arrest for serious crimes, including major drug offences”. We also promised that we would support results oriented community based initiatives for addiction treatments, training and rehabilitation of those who were in trouble with the law.

With Bill C-26 and our national anti-drug strategy, the government is fulfilling these promises.

With the proposed legislation, I am particularly pleased that we will take strong action to combat marijuana grow ops. Why do we need these mandatory minimum penalties for grow ops? We need them because sentences for these offenders amount to little more than a simple slap on the wrist.

Professor Darryl Plecas did a study of all the drug files opened by the police of British Columbia from 1998 to 2003. His findings underscore the need and the urgency for these criminal law reforms.

Professor Plecas found that between 1997 and 2003 indoor grow operations increased in average size from 149 plants to 236 plants. It should be noted that hydro bypasses, which allow for theft of hydro, were seen in approximately one in five grow operations. Also the number of fires associated with grow operations increased from 32 in 1997 to 80 in 2003.

These numbers are important because it draws a picture. Among the suspects, 57% had at least one other drug conviction, 41% had a prior conviction of some form of violence, 22% had a previous conviction for production and 27% had a previous conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking. On average, suspects had seven convictions occurring over a thirteen year period.

What kind of sentences are the courts imposing? Members may find it hard to believe that Professor Plecas found that only 27% of offenders with nine or more non-drug convictions were imprisoned. For offenders with nine or more drug convictions, only 54% were sentenced to jail time. Moreover, cases in which prison sentencing was the most serious disposition dropped from 19% in 1997 to 10% in 2003, while conditional sentences, as the most serious penalty, increased from 13% to 46%. When a prison sentence was imposed, the average length was only 4.9 months.

Clearly, existing sentences are not deterring individuals with multiple convictions from participating in grow ops over and over again.

I believe all members will agree that these sentences are insufficient to deter persons from being involved in marijuana grow ops. Certainly, I do not think they are appropriate. These sentences do not adequately reflect the serious nature of these crimes.

The issue of grow ops, and specifically crystal meth superlabs, is something in which I have taken a personal interest. My private member's bill, Bill C-428, which is currently being dealt with in the other place, deals with raising the penalties for those who produce and traffic in this dangerous drug.

I have heard from people from coast to coast who are concerned about the illegal drug use. They are concerned especially about the deterrents that are in place for those who produce and distribute these dangerous drugs, which have such a horrific impact in each one of our communities. It is time that Parliament send the needed message as to what we think is the appropriate range of penalties within which a judge can craft a sentence, taking into account the particular circumstances of the offender.

Bill C-26 would set that new range. At present, there is no floor and the ceiling is only seven years. Under Bill C-26 there would be a new maximum of 14 years, indicating clearly to the courts how seriously parliamentarians take this type of crime. More important, there would be mandatory periods of imprisonment that would reflect the number of plants. Those mandatory minimums would be increased where: the production constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to children who were in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area; the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area; a trap was placed or set; or the offender used real property that belonged to a third party to commit the offence.

Under Bill C-26, the penalties would be: six months for the production of up to 200 marijuana plants where the production was for the purpose of trafficking and nine months where the offence involved safety and health aggravating factors; one year for the production of 201 to 500 plants and 18 months where the offence involved health and safety aggravating factors; and two years for more than 500 plants and three years where the offence involved health and safety aggravating factors.

Clearly these proposed mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment are a measured response and fulfill the promise “ensure that serious crime results in serious punishment”. Moreover, the proposals fulfill the promise to support addiction treatment, training and rehabilitation of those in trouble with the law.

I remind members that where the accused has a previous conviction for a serious drug offence but there are no other aggravating circumstances with respect to the offence before the court, the legislation will allow the court to suspend the imposition of sentence if the offender participates in a drug treatment court program. If the person successfully completes the drug treatment program, the court can impose a lesser sentence.

Drug treatment courts are fairly new to Canada, but they are very promising. I understand that at a press conference on Bill C-26, Joe, the first graduate of Ottawa's drug treatment court, spoke eloquently and emotionally about how the court had helped him to be clean for 16 months. Joe has turned his life around and now he can contribute to society, whereas before he used to commit crimes to get money to feed his drug addiction.

It sounds simple and straightforward. Perhaps at one level it is. However, there is much more to the story.

The bill aims to assist in efforts to stem a new and insidious tide of human misery fuelled by a drug that is being seen in ever increasing quantities across the world. A brief history of media coverage across the planet tells the story of crystal meth.

In New Zealand, $1 million of crystal meth was seized by customs authorities. In the United Kingdom, a 32 year old man was convicted and imprisoned for crashing his car into a crowd of shoppers in London, causing a mother and her daughter to have their legs amputated. He was driving at a high rate of speed under the influence of crystal meth.

Here in Canada, Ontario Provincial Police officials have warned Children's Aid workers of the danger to their health and safety when in search of children if they have to enter homes where crystal meth is manufactured or used.

The manufacture and distribution of crystal meth is a machine that produces human misery, destroys lives and knows no bounds in its quest to rob so many promising young people of their future.

The very nature of addiction is tragic and tremendously sad to witness. The lives of those addicted are of course impacted, with tragic consequences. However, so are the lives of those who love them, live with them and share a community with them.

In my city of Toronto, which is not unlike other major cities and communities across the world, the price of drug addiction is a scourge across our collective human landscape, a scourge that leaves footprints across our lives. Indeed, there are few of us in the House who do not know someone or some family that has wrestled through their tears with the terrible and relentless impact of addiction.

The depths to which those who would profit from such misery can sink know no limits. Recently it was reported that in the case of crystal meth there is a new and even more despicable twist to the manufacture of this illegal drug.

We now hear of the production of so-called strawberry meth, which has flavouring added to it to make it more attractive to potential young addicts. It is beyond the comprehension of most of us here how any person could stoop to such depths as to pull our young people into a world of crystal meth addiction with such reprehensible methods, yet this is in fact what is occurring.

Those who peddle such human misery are unfamiliar with even the most basic concepts of human decency. Theirs is a world fuelled by greed and shrouded in the darkness of the human suffering they create but care little, if anything, about.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon all of us as citizens of our country to challenge and to hold to account those who would ravage a generation of young people for no other reason than their desire to feed their greed. It is especially the responsibility of us as legislators to provide our police, our social workers and our justice system with the tools they need to fight the war against this tide. It is a battle we must win if we are to protect our young people, and indeed Canadians, against this terrible reality.

The bill aims to address a very significant aspect of the battle. Stemming the supply of the drug is a major part of dealing with the overall problem of crystal meth.

The reality is that crystal meth is easy to produce in relatively small labs, which take root in regular houses and even hotel rooms. The materials required to manufacture the drug are not overly difficult to obtain.

The profits for those involved in this process can be significant. I understand that an investment of merely $150 can result in up to $10,000 worth of crystal meth.

Those who produce this drug create danger not only for those who become crystal meth users and addicts but also for the community at large. The risks in the manufacturing of this drug include explosions in these labs, the dumping of toxic byproducts in our municipal sewer system, and the contamination of houses, which can prevent occupation for months following the closing of a lab.

The production of crystal meth is a crime that affects the users of the drug and society as a whole.

We should note that the previous Liberal government did take decisive action with respect to crystal meth. In the summer of 2005, penalties for the possession, trafficking, production and importation of crystal meth were increased and it was added to schedule I of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which regulates the most dangerous of drugs. These were significant and important actions.

We must continue to take whatever steps we can to confront and address this threat.

Crystal meth robs the user of his or her future. It takes from our society the potential contributions of our young people, who deserve so much more, and it brings to society all the accompanying misery of the criminal activity associated with its manufacture and sale.

If we are to win this battle for our children, we must meet the challenge at every opportunity. The legislation we are debating today helps in the fight against crystal meth.

We must also ensure that there is adequate treatment for those who are addicts. We must work to assist families confronting this challenge. We must provide those on the front lines of this battle with the tools they need to deal effectively with this scourge on society.

It is for these reasons that I intend to vote in favour of this bill. I encourage my colleagues to do the same. We owe it to our children and to future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate being recognized this afternoon and allowed to speak on my private member's bill.

My private member's bill seeks to help take care of the growing problem of methamphetamine or crystal meth in our communities.

The devastation that this drug inflicts on our families and communities across this nation is horrific. The war is on and, quite frankly, we are losing the battle. Too many of our young, healthy citizens are losing years of their life to the devastation of this drug and some are even dying in the grips of its horror.

From coast to coast, Canadians are horrified by the devastation that drugs inflict on our communities, our schools and our families. Meth is one of the greatest threats to many of our communities. Unfortunately, its popularity is increasing.

Meth has a hold on too many of our young citizens and we as parliamentarians have a responsibility to do something about it.

My private member's bill seeks to limit the opportunities for criminal organizations and criminally minded people to wilfully and knowingly assist in the accumulation of precursors and the equipment for the purpose of manufacturing or to sell to someone who will manufacture this life devastating drug.

This is a vital change to the current legislation and it is my prayer and my hope that this will turn the tide on this horrific drug.

Let us not forget what is at the core of this issue. What is truly at the core of this issue is that this issue is about the lives of people.

As I have advanced this bill through the House and as it worked through committee, I have heard heart-wrenching stories from people across this country who have come forward to tell me stories about how their friends, their students, their siblings, and even in one case how their parents have had their lives devastated and destroyed by this drug.

It only takes one use of this drug and many people are addicted for life. The addictive qualities of methamphetamine make it a dangerous drug for any person to experiment with. To quote a person that I met with just last week in my office, she actually is a recovering addict and she said, “I was at the lowest point in my life and the pain was so great. Someone convinced me that the pain would just go away if I'd take the drug”.

She said that was the beginning of a five year horror as she fought the addiction from that day forward. She said if the drug had not been available to her that day, she never would have been hooked.

Meth is a highly addictive drug. With a long-lasting high, and a sense of overwhelming euphoria, it produces effects that many people feel are unmanageable without the drug.

The use and abuse of crystal meth is on the rise throughout Canada. Its prevalence is growing as dealers find new ways to target potential users and sell the drug. It is in our communities, our schools, our families, and it is in our workplaces.

This drug can affect anyone, the rich, the poor, the old and the young. It does not matter if the person is a man or a woman. It seems to affect all these people equally.

It is, however, growing among some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Usage among young people and people that are already at high risk seem to be the people that are falling into the trap of this drug most frequently.

The menace of crystal meth on each of our communities from coast to coast is real and acute. As a nation we must fight back.

Unlike other drugs, methamphetamine does not need to be imported or grown. It can be produced relatively easily right here in our communities in undercover labs that are hard to detect.

Methamphetamine is not legal anywhere in Canada. I think all of us know that. However, the drug can be produced virtually anywhere, in small sheds, basements and even in mobile labs such as the back of cars or in trailers. These makeshift laboratories are extremely dangerous due to the presence of highly flammable liquids and corrosive chemicals, usually mixed together by people who have no expertise or experience in dealing with these types of products.

However, the majority of meth that is sold on our streets today is produced in undercover super labs which can produce up to 10 pounds at a time, or it is also being produced in what is called mid-level labs which produce just under nine pounds at a time. These labs are often referred to by police as clandestine labs.

While there are larger numbers of small scale labs, they produce only 5% of the meth available on the streets today. The small scale or home based labs often are operated by meth users themselves and produce only one ounce at a time, just enough for the user and sometimes to cover the cost of that person's addiction.

The issue here is really about the super labs. These are dangerous labs that require a huge amount of precursor material to produce the quantity of meth that they do. By giving the authorities the tools that are included in the bill, I believe there will be additional opportunities to stop the production in Canada.

Like I have said before, unlike other drugs, meth need not be imported or grown in Canada. That is a very important point for us to recognize. It can be synthesized using components that are readily available. This drug can be ready for distribution in a shockingly short period of time as all the legal precursors are available quite easily in Canada. The ability to purchase these commonly available ingredients, coupled with the ability to produce crystal meth virtually anywhere, makes this a very dangerous combination.

With my bill, the possession of these precursors and equipment, along with the proven criminal intent to produce crystal meth or methamphetamines, would allow the police to seize and lay charges relating to the methamphetamine production. The ability to get this material off our street will enhance public safety.

The RCMP testified before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and said that this year marked a dramatic shift in Canada as far as methamphetamine was concerned. We have now gone from a methamphetamine importing nation to a methamphetamine exporting nation. Under the current legislation, it requires that police investigate and maintain an investigation until methamphetamines are at their final stages of chemical synthesis.

The RCMP also stated at the standing committee that this legislation would move the yardstick forward and give it another tool to fight for our communities against this destructive drug.

I will share with the House some other testimony that was provided to the committee. On December 13, 2007, the experts said that if there were a truckload of ephedrine going to a proven crystal meth lab, police officers did not currently have the tools at their disposal to arrest the perpetrators under the current legislation.

Sergeant Doug Culver from the RCMP said explicitly:

So in your scenario of the truckload of chemical A going somewhere, there would be no offence in the current legislation. With the legislation we've seen in front of us today, if we could prove in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver of that vehicle knew he was taking that chemical to a lab [run by criminals] or to someone else with the intent of using it to make methamphetamine, then we would have grounds to stop that vehicle, arrest that person, and seize that quantity of chemicals.

The current legislation measures in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act do not go far enough and are not robust enough to tackle this problem. The full weight of legislation must be enabled so people who willingly produce and traffic its precursors will face the consequences that the legislation would bring.

By making the possession of precursors and equipment with the intent to produce or traffic a criminal offence, it will strengthen our laws and provide for a more forceful consequence for people who willingly and wilfully possess materials that are used in the production of methamphetamine.

The bill would also increase the maximum penalty to 10 years from the current 3 years for possession of precursors with the intent to produce crystal meth or methamphetamine.

If I can quote Ms. Bouchard, director of the Office of Controlled substances from the Department of Health from her testimony, on December 13, 2007, before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, when she said:

If we were to find a person in possession of those substances, and that person were not authorized to possess them, meaning they did not have a licence allowing their possession of those substances, it would not be an offence at the level of the act or statute but a violation of a regulation requiring that the person be in possession of a licence. However, the penalties associated with those offences are not very high. They're related to section 46 of the CDSA act and are for a maximum of up to two years. So they are very low penalties...

This bill would change that.

The impact on our communities is great. Relative to other drugs, crystal meth is cheap to buy, making it more accessible to children and youth. Meth is not always the drug of choice for youth addicted to drugs, but if it is available, it is proven that they will often choose it. Meth is referred to as the “poor man's cocaine”.

Individuals who become meth users are addicted more quickly and experience worse effects from prolonged use than other drugs. The negative impacts kick in quickly and the results are devastating.

Another account of a user reads:

Meth addiction is cunning and baffling. It starts out as a harmless and fun thing to do, and then, before you know it, your whole life becomes centred on it and it gets to the point where you can't imagine your life without it. But you're unable to live with it.

We must ask, who really is using crystal meth? This drug is particularly alarming because it is highly addictive, easily accessible, cheap to buy, and for these factors it is, unfortunately, very popular among young people.

Most meth users tend to use other drugs. In addition to meth, they also may use ecstasy, marijuana or other drugs at the same time. In these cases, the burden of mental and physical illness associated with drugs that are used in combination rises and the possibility for devastating effects increase.

Unfortunately, meth users tend to be between the ages of 10 and 25. If we do not do something, we will increasingly see crystal meth or methamphetamine climb its way into our schools and playgrounds.

One frightening fact is that some children, youth and young adults who are exposed to meth may not even know that they have been exposed. More and more drug producers are adding meth to other drugs because it is inexpensive and it gives other drugs increased addictive qualities. Some police reports estimate that 70% to 75% of the ecstasy sold on streets contains methamphetamine.

The expansion of more clandestine large scale production labs has the potential to increase availability and lower prices, which could ultimately result in a larger number of users. Meth affects not only individual lives, relationships and families, but it also has a direct impact on the communities in which it is produced and used.

Meth has followed a somewhat fractured path in invading communities. Some communities in my province have yet to witness the impact on their streets and in their schools, while other communities have been hit hard by meth, forcing them to join together to fight back.

It is my hope that the bill will be an important part of the overall strategy to combat methamphetamine. I am proud to support our government's national anti-drug strategy that focuses on prevention, treatment and enforcement. Two-thirds of the funding of that program are dedicated to the strategy that is focused on the prevention and treatment portions. I believe wholeheartedly that is very much a necessity, but I also believe the best form of harm reduction is to ensure it does not fall in children's hands.

We must work hard and target people who produce crystal meth. We must do what is in the best interest of young people from coast to coast to coast. Not only do I have the support of members of Parliament in the House, but I have had special talks with the Assembly of First Nations and found it to be supportive. I have also had the opportunity to get the endorsement of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for this private member's bill.

In fact, the federal-provincial-territorial ministers responsible for justice reported in their report of July 2007, that the contents of the bill would be very helpful in fighting this type of drug production.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations between the parties of the House and I believe that if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move:

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today at second reading of Bill C-26. In this bill, the government is targeting those who produce and distribute illicit drugs by imposing more severe penalties on them. This is part of a major anti-drug strategy with a budget of more than $64 million unveiled a few months ago by the Prime Minister.

Even though the purpose of Bill C-26 seems clear, I think that its ultimate goal, to reduce consumption of illegal drugs, would be better achieved with more subtle measures that would produce truly positive results. That is why it is important to understand this bill, to hold onto the parts of it that have merit and to reveal the problems hidden within it.

First, I would like to point out that the current legislation already includes good tools to fight drugs. Since 1997, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act has prohibited the import, export, production, sale, acquisition and possession of drugs and controlled substances, except when regulations permit it for medical purposes. At the time, the legislation created a new offence, production of a controlled substance. It also amended certain penalties in accordance with rulings of the Supreme Court, which had ruled that a minimum seven-year sentence for the import and export of drugs was far too severe.

Under the legislation, trafficking is defined as the selling, giving, administering, transporting, sending or delivering of one of the drugs listed in Schedules I through IV. The legislation also includes precursors of substances listed in Schedules I through V. Precursors are the ingredients used in the production of a controlled substance listed in the schedules.

Now that we know the context of this bill, I would like to focus on a worrisome aspect that I have criticized many times in previous bills and that is minimum sentences. With respect to heavier minimum sentences, it is clear that the Bloc Québécois has never doubted the importance of taking measures to reduce the consumption and production of drugs.

At first glance anyone would say that this bill provides more safety and more means to control drugs. However, before drawing hasty conclusions, the first thing to do before addressing a problem is to understand it in its entirety, grasp its scope and assess its consequences. We have to put things in perspective.

It is important to remind people that Statistics Canada indicated in 2006, before Bill C-26 was put on the table, that Canada's overall national crime rate, based on incidents reported to police, hit its lowest point in over 25 years, driven by a decline in non-violent crime. The crime rate dropped by 3% over the previous year and by 30% since 1991. When we look at the problem as a whole, we see that crime is going down in Canada. This is a major trend that has been observed for many years.

Obviously the Bloc Québécois does not want to minimize the situation. Any tragedy is one tragedy too many and statistics hide the human tragedies that affect families. We have to realize that the current system is producing positive results. We have to avoid giving up these gains by adopting measures whose impact has not been fully examined.

Bill C-26 relies heavily on minimum sentences, and specifically on the supposed deterrent effect of harsher sentences. That has never been clearly proven. Harsher sentences are imposed by our neighbours to the south, who obtain results that are not particularly convincing. I would say that minimum jail sentences are not a greater deterrent than adequate supervision in the community.

However, as a member of a responsible party that does not ignore reality, I have to recognize that drug-related offences have increased slightly.

For example, again according to Statistics Canada, the total number of drug offences rose by 2% in 2006. In fact, the picture of drug use is changing slightly. Cannabis-related offences, such as possession, make up 60% of all drug offences, but were down 4%.

We understand the situation, and we are aware of the issues. Moreover, quite recently, my colleague from Hochelaga and I examined Bill C-428 to consider the best way to combat the emerging problem of methamphetamine use.

We are contributing to the war on drugs, which brings me to a positive aspect of Bill C-26. The bill allows judges, with the consent of the prosecutor, to require offenders to take part in a drug treatment program. If the offender successfully completes the program, he avoids the minimum sentence. I believe that this is a good way to rehabilitate offenders.

I therefore believe that we are going to refer Bill C-26 to committee for a more detailed examination.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. In accordance with the order of reference of Tuesday, October 16, 2007, your committee has considered Bill C-428, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine), and has agreed as of Tuesday, January 29, 2008, to report it with amendment.

I would like to call the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order. Our agenda should be before all members here.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 16, 2007, Bill C-428, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act on methamphetamine, is still under review, under debate. It's a private member's bill, of course.

Mr. Chris Warkentin, I believe you will be making an opening statement.

I know, committee members, there was a desire for more information, specifically from the police. Representing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Michel Aubin, acting director general, drugs and organized crime, and Mr. Culver. Welcome to the committee. And from the Department of Justice we have Greg Yost, counsel, criminal law policy section. Welcome.

Whereas the banning and repression resulting from it cause more harm to individuals and to society than the use of psychoactive substances themselves;

Whereas widespread behaviour can only be eradicated through legislation with difficulty, without causing other problems such as corruption;

Whereas scientific studies show that at best, there is no difference in current user profiles as far as countries with different drug policies are concerned, and that at worst, prohibition strategies engender more serious consequences than do harm reduction strategies;

Whereas there is an important distinction to be made between use and abuse, and that the majority of users are functional and have adapted, in a way that is all together comparable with those who abstain;

Whereas abuse and addiction are often the consequence of problems of psychosocial functioning and not their cause;

Whereas people grappling with abuse and addiction problems are primarily in need of assistance and not punishment, and punishment often aggravates the situation;

Whereas abstinence is not always possible for everyone, at least not in the short term;

Whereas in Canada, the principle of fair justice is not respected from one region to another as far as the possession of narcotics is concerned;

Whereas the devastating effects of metamphetamine primarily result from the inhalation or injection methods of use and the lifestyle of the user;

And finally, whereas the effects of substances and drug addiction are not punely the result of the pharmacological effects of substances, but of the interaction between them, the individual and the context, it is recommended to the committee and to the government to not criminalize the possession of metamphetamine, nor any other drug.

It is also recommended to the government to implement measures other than reducing supply by also taking action with respect to people and their social context with a view to reducing demand and harm. That is the first proposal.

The second, which more specifically concerns the two subsections under 7.1 put forward in the bill, read as follows:

Whereas a number of people, particularly young people, who for the most part are well adapted, contributing members of our future society, possess and use speed in pill form that could contain metamphetamines or their precursors, for example amphetamines;

Whereas a number of people possess and use medications or natural products made up in whole or in part of potential metamphetamine precursors;

Whereas certain substances used in the synthesis of metamphetamines can also be used to produce other consumer goods, for example perfume, in the case of lithium hydride;

And finally, whereas well-intentioned people wishing to manufacture natural products, for example, buy used equipment to enable them to produce pills, but that such equipment is sometimes contaminated by a previous owner, it is recommended to the committee and to the government to amend Bill C-428, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Other Substances Act (methamphetamine), in order to specify which substances are targeted by section 7.1—speed pills sold as amphetamine, amphetamine, pseudo-ephedrine, ephedrine, ephedra, natural products containing ephedra, decongestant medications containing pseudo-ephedrine or ephedrine, mahwong, lithium hydride, aluminum hydride, etc.—and in what form.

Finally, it is recommended to the committee and to the government to clarify the word “intended” so as to avoid anyone being unfairly incriminated by having material in his or her possession that could potentially be used for production or trafficking, but in fact is not.

To conclude, I believe that it is both possible and preferable to control the precursors to metamphetamine production, and that all the other aspects of this bill could do more harm than good.

Mr. Chairman and committee members, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse appreciates the opportunity to meet with you today to share information on methamphetamine as you consider Bill C-428.

As you may know, CCSA is Canada's national non-governmental organization formed in 1988 by an act of Parliament to provide national leadership and evidence-informed analysis and advice on substance abuse and use in Canada. CCSA recognizes the harms associated with the use and production of methamphetamine and therefore supports efforts to reduce levels of use, production, and availability in Canada.

I thank my colleagues from the RCMP for speaking to the practical enforcement concerns related to the ease with which methamphetamine can be produced using legally available materials in Canada. In light of CCSA's mandate and expertise, my presentation will focus on providing the committee with a summary of evidence on the use of methamphetamine in Canada in order to inform your discussion and provide a context for these very real and practical enforcement-related concerns.

I would like to begin by emphasizing the need to ensure that any response to substance use is evidence-informed. In order to respond effectively to methamphetamine use in a community, we need an accurate picture of the problem, including the extent of use, characteristics of users, social context, and sources of distribution. As an example, the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission, supported by CCSA, is currently piloting a rapid assessment methodology that brings together a range of community resources to assess and act on developing substance use issues.

Maintaining current information on substance use at both national and community levels also facilitates the identification of problems in the early stages. This early identification allows communities to gather the health, enforcement, and other social resources needed for a proactive, comprehensive approach to the problem.

Overall, available prevalence data indicates that only a small proportion of Canadians currently use or have ever used methamphetamine. There is also evidence that rates of use in many locations have stabilized or are declining. I would, however, like to emphasize that I do not present these statistics to minimize the potential impact of meth on users, on their families, and on communities, but to provide you with what we know about the scope of the problem in order to inform your discussion.

At the national level, we currently have limited data specific to methamphetamine use. The 2004 Canadian addiction survey categorized methamphetamine under the general category of “speed and other amphetamines”, therefore breaking out what proportion of the 0.8% who reported past-year use of speed and amphetamines—

When we did the prevention and the enforcement, we worked with the RCMP and asked what tools they would find useful as well, so that they would have more success with regard to the enforcement side. That's how we came up with this resolution. I believe this bill really supports that resolution's intent.

We've done a lot of things, but what's happening here is that it's very easy for people to get access to the drugs used to produce methamphetamine. The more we can make that difficult for people, the less this drug will be there. When we're looking at large quantities of sales, we have to do a better job. We put monitoring the possession of those drugs, those chemicals, in the resolution, because in fact you'll see some of those chemicals used quite often, and there's not a problem. You'll see them on the farm or those kinds of things, but the purpose is to have a tool to monitor those. We are keeping track of who is buying these kinds of chemicals and where they are. It also gives some information to the RCMP to be able to monitor that, to question why large quantities of something may be going to specific buyers on a regular basis. It's a tool, if you will.

I think the bill is trying to even go further, and we certainly support the intent of Bill C-428. We support the amendment.

First of all, I want to congratulate you, Mr. Warkentin, for having managed to get your private member's bill this far. God knows how hard that is. As Mr. Ménard has often said, it is an honour to have you before us here today.

I read the bill, that is the amendment that you are proposing to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. In order to really grasp what you have tabled, I am going to make a comparison with what I know of criminal law, being a lawyer who has worked in that area.

You used the term “precursors”. We know that is in the legislation. According to various categories, these are products that you might have at home, that can be mixed, and at some point in time could become what we call crystal meth, that is to say the product that we do indeed wish to criminalize.

I have the following question: Do you make a connection with section 351 of the Criminal Code, which deals with the possession of break-in instruments? For example, if I own a jimmy, a hammer, a crowbar or other kinds of tools, taken separately there is no problem, all woodworkers would have those in their garage, but if I have all those tools together in my car, that could indicate the intention to steal or to commit an offence under the Criminal Code.

Is the meaning that you have given to the word “precursors”—and this is in the same vein as Mrs. Freeman's question—indeed intended to criminalize the fact that one might have several household products or things that could be combined, as is the case in the Criminal Code? That would mean that if these items are separate, you could not be charged, but if they are together, you could be. Is that what you are trying to do? All of these products, in certain cases, are allowed to be on the marketplace.

I would like to know if that is what you are trying to do with Bill C-428, that is to say the equivalent of what you find in the Criminal Code on the subject of the possession of break-in instruments. Those are tools that, taken separately, are not banned, but put together they become so. Is that the case?